Pavel Ivanov wrote: > I understand that. That's why concurrent access should be made very > wisely. But if this concurrent access is to some cache which allows to > avoid huge amount of disk reads - it's worth the effort.
The operating system also just happens to have a cache that allows avoiding disk reads :-) It will even grow and shrink based on what else is going on on the machine. It is even automatically shared amongst all processes without them having to be specifically coded for it. [Null and void for Windows XP] > And my > overall point here is that there's no universal taboo "threads are > evil in all cases". It totally depends on the type of application. It also depends on the programmer. And the future. I am perfectly willing to grant that you and others are in the top 95th percentile of programmer ability and talent. You are unlikely to have too many threading issues. But in the future others will be working on it too, and they won't be the perfect specimens you are. They'll take shortcuts, they'll misunderstand the perfect architecture documentation you created, they'll write the shortest amount of code necessary, they will test on machines unlikely to cause threading problems etc. Roger _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
